Thank You for Flying Calvin Air

“Welcome to CalvinAir. We ask during the flight that everyone please refrain from smoking. There are two restrooms; one located here in basic seating and one up front in select seating. For reasons of safety we have anticipated your every need. You will be allowed to leave your seats when we reach cruising altitude. At all other times we ask that you keep your seatbelts tightly fastened.”

“In case of an emergency there are four exits; two located here in standard class seating and two up front in select class seating. Only those doors in select will actually open. Those in standard are welded shut.”

“If the cabin loses pressure then face masks will automatically drop from the bulkheads located above your seats. Only those masks in select class will provide oxygen. The face masks in standard class are not connected.”

“If we are forced to land on water then your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device. Only the cushions in select class will actually float, those in basic class are filled with lead.”

“Please enjoy your flight and, speaking for the captain and crew, thank you for flying CalvinAir.“

Ghost Story

My wife and daughter share a casual interest in accounts of the supernatural.  They love to watch those ghost shows on the cable channels, the ones where the paranormal investigators check out allegedly haunted houses.  Although they are not in the least way obsessed with the idea of supernatural contact, they both find it entertaining and have adopted a “who knows?” attitude.  As for myself, I am a born skeptic and have little time for these ‘reality’ TV programs.

Last Sunday Bev and I took Dot, our 19 year old daughter, and her best friend Bekah , out to enjoy an afternoon’s drive through the countryside at autumn’s peak. It was a classic fall day, a brisk wind pushing gunmetal clouds across a blue sky.  The sunlight had that watery feel to it, softening the bright colors of the leaves. Later in the afternoon we ended up in an old town that is famous for being at the center of a Civil War battle.  Dot mentioned that the town was considered a favorite haunt for many ghosts, apparently due to the thousands of violent deaths inflicted in that battle.

Since the weather was so nice and the trees so beautiful we were surprised that only a smattering of restaurants in town were open.  Of those few, we chose a busy place on the square.  Most of the buildings in town looked quite old yet well maintained, and this one was no exception.  There was a 20 minute wait for a table so I took my pager outside and sat on a bench.  My wife darted into an antique store to check out their advertised “dental artifacts” while the girls ran to the lady’s room, upstairs in the restaurant.

Ten minutes later the girls burst out through the establishment’s doors, laughing and giggling.  When I asked about all their joviality, Dot held out her phone to me.  “Listen” she said.

The traffic noise was loud on the square but I could just make out Dot’s voice saying; “Is there anyone with us today? If you’re here we would like to talk to you.” There was a long pause full of static, then Dot saying; “You can talk to me (garbled)?” Pause. “ You don’t have to be afraid of us. You can talk to me. My name is Dot. Pause. Allright, bye- bye.” This was followed by the sounds of both girls giggling.  .

(I knew just what they had been up to. Recently we watched the movie “White Noise” on DVD. In it, Michael Keaton is contacted by souls who have gone over to the ‘other side’. They reached him by laying their voices down on magnetic recording tape. Upon playback these spectral voices could be heard for the first time.  Called EVP – Electronic Voice Phenomena- it is taken very seriously by some people, the foremost experts being Lisa and Tom Butler of AAEVP, consultants on the film. [ http://www.aaevp.com/  ]  I thought it was a fair movie, but like most ‘scary’ movies you need to suspend your disbelief for a couple of hours. My disbelief in the paranormal returned before the credits were running, My wife and daughter maintained their “who knows?” perspective. and after the movie they excitedly exchanged stories of other EVPs.)

Back on the town square, I smiled and handed the phone back.  One should never underestimate what Dot might do.  Just then, as Bev was walking up, the restaurant pager went off. We went inside, had an enjoyable meal and within a couple of hours we were back home.  That night, in the quiet of our living room, Dot listened to the recording again. Excited, she had us listen to it as well.

In the middle of the second pause of scratchy white noise a woman’s low voice could be heard whispering what sounded like “Kitty, kitty, kitty”, followed by a very soft chuckle (or sobbing, perhaps?).  I immediately suspected the girls of playing a prank but Dot was able to quickly convince me of their innocence. I know my daughter, and that’s not her style.  She insisted that they were completely alone in the ladies room (she would never had attempted this stunt otherwise).  I asked her to send the voice message to my phone and the next day I had some co –workers listen to it.  Eyes were wide when they put the phone down. You can hear the recording by going to the following link:

http://www.t-mobilepictures.com/14196383/_entry/8a38a92d15cf060d0115cf5831a8359d/ps/ENTRY/EDITENTRY?foneblog=1193281762884

Going to Google I initiated a search for more information and found what I was looking for:

In 2001 this restaurant burned down to the ground and it had since been rebuilt to the original specifications.  During the reconstruction the body of a recently murdered woman had been discovered at the building site, where she reportedly had been left to die.  (I have yet to find any other information). The restaurant staff says that the spirit of this woman haunts the building, open and closing doors and windows , with most of the activity taking place in the kitchen and in the ladies room.

OK.  I can’t explain this. Is this the result of some elaborate hoax being perpetrated by the operators of this restaurant?  It’s not as if they promoted any haunting – it was not easy finding the story of the dead woman’s body.  Could it be the tortured soul of someone named Kitty, somehow trapped in this house?  Or, as my daughter suspects, was the spirit mocking Dot, comparing her to someone who casually calls for a pet, not knowing what they are really dealing with? Is Kitty someone we should be praying for?

At one time I would never seriously consider such a thing as supernatural phenomena, but for over the past 5 years I have been immersed things spiritual.  As some will say, who knows?

What do you think?  Do you have a similar story to share?

Good Book: “If God Is Love: Rediscovering Grace in an Ungracious World”

I just finished this book and thought it was superb. Very easy reading, short chapters, light and airy styling. Although written by two men, Philip Gulley and James Mulholland (both Quaker ministers), it was written in the first person singular. It is essentially a compendium of their experiences and thoughts of Jesus and his kingdom.   

I was lead to this book by reading Gulley’s blurb on the jacket of a Brennan Manning book . Gulley has a series of books about hometown Indiana and has been compared to Garrison Keillor.  He also has (or had?) a program on public radio.  I am looking forward to checking him out more thoroughly.

Enemies at the Gate: Christian Intolerance

Your Jelly Fish version of Chrissianity (sic) is well documented…great job “coverting”(sic) souls to Christ with you gummy bear Jelly bean Jesus version of the Gospel! You guys are well defined by this little piece appropriately called “Back Rubs 4 Jesus” (www.youtube.com/watch?v=mohixsVRNdc ) Ha! That suits your sweet, sweet, candy cane Chrissianity (sic) just fine! What a farce! Chocolate Soldiers every one of you!

www.officialstreetpreachers.com

This was a recent comment on an article I wrote about the largely negative consequences of extolling a gospel of hell and damnation; http://sharpiron.wordpress.com/2007/08/28/intimacy-not-intimidation/#comment-1209

There were other more reasoned responses, some of them even suggesting that my position may be exaggerated, but I think the digestion of this one particular remark is the proof of the pudding. Although this fellow’s ‘ministry’ is a little over the top and would garner little sympathy among many of us, his wording is not really that outrageous. I find it to be similar to what has been expressed by many conservative Christians.

There seems to be a lot of resistance to the idea of remembering Jesus primarily as he has been portrayed in the Gospels. Many of the arguments I hear say that the image of Jesus found in the Gospels, the patient, loving, peaceful and tolerant peasant, fond of little children and the lame as well as lepers, prostitutes and thieves, represents only one aspect of God. There is also God the punisher, the wrathful, the one who hates sin to such a degree that he cannot tolerate sinners. It is said that this picture of God can be found throughout the Old Testament as well as in John’s Revelation. I personally don’t see this vision in scriptures, but nevertheless, I don’t believe that this is the real reason why so many are fond of this stern and vengeful depiction of God.

I think this attraction stems from an ingrained need for people to identify with a group and the accompanying urge to keep those who do not conform outside of the tribe. A sense of insecurity pervades many churches, a fear that the flock will be corrupted by the sin of others. In practice this makes it easier for us to ignore some of the deeper meanings of Jesus’ teachings; those about unconditional forgiveness, love, mercy and tolerance. We often find it easier to accept Levitical exhortations against homosexuality rather than Jesus’ command not to judge others. (Matt 7: 1-2) [For more thoughts on why we have this tendency towards conformity check out this thread on 'Suddenly Christian' ; http://johnshore.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/why-must-others-be-like-us/]

We pay lip service to our slogans welcoming everyone to our churches, becoming gate keepers instead. When we forget that our churches are made up of nothing but sinners we find ourselves taking pleasure in our own salvation, even cultivating a sense of pride in our privileged position with God. We learn to notice those characteristics of the ‘saved’ versus the ‘unsaved’ and find ourselves, perhaps unconsciously, avoiding those who do not meet what we believe are God’s standards. We forget that God loves the sinner, the pagan, just as much as he loves each of us within the church. If he can find value in our lives, working through us and with us, what makes us think that he is not doing the same with them?

Though told to go out into the world and feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the imprisoned, we tend to restrict these activities to our fellow church members. Perhaps just the idea of membership is the problem. Our churches take on the character of Coast Guard rescue vessels, our pastors at the helm while the rest of us serve as crew. We gallantly ply the treacherous seas of this world, searching for souls that need saving and hauling them on board. Not a bad analogy, perhaps, until the ‘saved’ realize that unless they agree with the captain’s theology or the crew’s uniform standards he may find himself tossed into the drink once again. It is easy to find yourself shunning the sinner when your theology tells you that God considers them fuel for the fires of hell.

How did we get to this point where we have “captains’ manning the helms and steering us into waters that appear to be Biblical yet turn out to be dangerously shallow? Why do those of us who claim to have met the risen Jesus feel the need for the guidance of generation upon generation of authoritarian pastors, vicars, priests and bishops? Could it be that a man-made hierarchy within the church contributes to the “common sense” that there is also another hierarchy; that of the churched versus the un-churched, the saved versus the un-saved?

In the second century, Irenaeus, Bishop of Gaul and student of Polycarp became alarmed at the lack of cohesiveness within the early church’s theology. He took it upon himself to identify those teachings that were false (heresies) and had a tremendous amount of influence over what became today’s canon as well as much of today’s church doctrines and dogmas. Although not everything he taught has been included in common church doctrine, much of it was first enunciated by him, including the idea that scripture was divinely inspired. Some of what we find most controversial to this day is grounded in his personal theology. http://www.lessonsonline.info/IRENAEUS%20OF%20LYONS.htm

One of the greatest challenges that he faced was how to go about establishing the authority that he (and other church leaders) needed to mandate what was truth and what was not. With this in mind he was able to find biblical and historical justification for “apostolic succession”; the idea, for example, that John the Apostle (allegedly) taught Polycarp who taught Irenaeus and so on and so forth. Once his authority was established those that disagreed with him were labeled as heretics and expelled from the congregation. No dissent, no compromise, no question was tolerated. Unfortunately, this is the model that the church chose to adopt. Elaine Pagels, in Beyond Belief notes that, like our clergy of today ” Irenaeus promises that he will explain for them what the scripture really means and insists that only what he teaches is true”. This stands in stark contrast to the type of discourse that can be found in most synagogues, where the rabbi and congregants remember how Abraham and Moses would question God, even getting him to change his mind on occasion.

Jesus challenged the religious authorities of his time; with their policies of excluding those who did not meet their standards of righteousness. He did not seem to be interested in establishing a new religion in his name but instead on shaking things up for the religious status quo. When asked, he tells people to follow his way, to be like him. He says that all of the law hangs on the commandment to love God and love each other. He tells us to love our enemies. He says that those who feel hate for anyone at all are at great risk. He says that the world will know that we are his followers by our love. He says all these things and then he hangs out with hookers and thieves. He tells one thief that he will take him to paradise, no strings attached. He embraced and healed lepers, who were thought to be guilty of terrible sexual sins.

This new religion, Christianity, soon became something that was rarely identifiable with the example of Christ. When weak they were persecuted by the Romans and displayed the strength one finds with God’s grace and mercy. Upon becoming strong, the church took on the role of persecutor and those dissidents that suffered at their hands now took on the role of Christ crucified, dying for what they held to be the truth. Today there are those who seek God but because their sin is seen so differently from many others they now stand outside the gate. If Jesus would invite them in, who are we to keep them out? Perhaps more importantly, what human has the authority to demand such inhospitality?

God’s Pick in the Election

Is it Hillary? Rudy? Barack? Mitt? More importantly, has he chosen your friend or your neighbor, your wife, your parents or your children? Has he even chosen you?

Because, some Christians say, long before the universe was but a twinkle in God’s eye he decided on who he was going to be with in heaven and who he would condemn to the fiery pits of hell, for ever and ever and ever. Using scripture verses such as Ephesians 1:3-4 there is an entire theology based upon a very specific and literal interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. Although some of those passages would seem to be in opposition to others (even those attributed to Christ) there is usually no chance of chatting amicably about this over a cup of coffee. The case is closed and theological minds on both sides are made up. In fact, a persistence in opposing either particular point of view can result in the religious version of WMD (the word ‘HERETIC’) being brought out and dusted off. (I’ve come to develop quite a perverted fondness for that label, myself. )

Considering how cemented this philosophy is within the minds of its adherents you might think that it has roots growing all the way back to the teachings of Jesus. But, though some say Augustine is the father of this doctrine, most would give John Calvin the lion’s share of the credit. It is only after the Protestant Reformation, fully 1500 years after the death of Christ, that this philosophy was fully articulated and expounded.

I count as friends some who believe fervently in predestination, that God has decided long before we are ever born what our fate will be. I mean no offense when I say that, personally, I find this doctrine to be completely at odds with what I believe the Bible teaches us, particularly through Jesus. I also think it contradicts what God reveals to us through nature and the lives of others. Of course, I am hardly alone in this regard. It is almost as if the Christian faith is split right down the middle on this issue and, in spite of how important it would seem to be, there is something like a cease fire over the topic. John Wesley ( an opponent of this doctrine) is said to have said, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity”. But wouldn’t this be considered an essential of the faith? I have heard popular preachers accused of being “abominations” (that’s a constructive word, isn’t it?) because they professed to having difficulty with the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity. Why is there no greater debate within the church over this very clear-cut Doctrine of Election?

I’ve read John MacArthur’s take on this; (as well as others) but I just don’t buy it. (And sorry, John, I think you are just a tad arrogant when you attribute any disagreement with the very man-made ‘TULIP’ formula as to being driven by pride. I think we could turn that one back on you as well.)

http://www.gty.org/resources.php?section=transcripts&aid=231193

I’ve read that the renowned preacher Charles Spurgeon had such a problem with this that one week he would preach a Calvinist sermon and the next he would preach an Armenian one. Certainly we can do better than that. Can we open this up for discussion without offending each other? I would hope so. I admit that I have much to learn about the ‘why’s and wherefore’s‘ of the reformed church and I would like very much to be sympathetic yet I cannot see my way clear of this very thorny subject. Am I destined to never understand?

Evangelize Through Intimacy, not Intimidation

There was a training course offered today at work called ”Nonviolent Crisis Intervention“. It was designed to assist the school’s staff on ways to avert a crisis and then de-escalate the situation.

It was an excellent class presented by an excellent teacher. He taught that in order to successfully modify someone’s aggressive behavior it is important to remember that our first goal is to win them over to our way thinking. I found this interesting in that much of what he taught was similar to what I had learned over years in business. A couple of things in particular stood out;

When it comes to managing people (family, students, customers, employees, church members etc) we will rarely be successful in trying to exert our will over the other person. We need to understand where that person is coming from, how they see things differently than we do and even if they comprehend the immediate situation. “There is no reality for us other than that of the customer’s perception” is something we used to say in the restaurant business.

Once we understand their state of mind we need to convey our empathy. They need to see something of themselves in us and to do this we need to see something of ourselves in them.  To try and change their perception by imposing our authority is likely to end up with us driving them farther away. Before our authority can hold any validity (outside of inciting fear, which is not a lasting means of behavior management) they must be able to relate to us in some fashion. There needs be a point of recognition that they can identify with. This is difficult to do if we continue to take the high ground and insist upon certain behaviors merely because our given ‘authority’ can justify it. The great number of violent political revolutions would support this.

Often, in response to given direction someone will ask a question that can easily be mistaken as being irrational and provocative. Our teacher today gave an example:

Suppose we see a child (in this case a student) drop a potato chip on the floor and do nothing about it. We ask the child to pick up the chip and his or her response is; “Why should I?” Most of us would probably see this as being disrespectful and designed to provoke a negative response on our part. But there is a very good chance that this is an honest question. What if the child has been reared in a home in which no one is expected to pick up food when they drop it? What if the examples that they have been given have created this learned response on their part? (I have worked with new cooks who were flabbergasted when I would request they clean behind themselves. That had always been someone else’s responsibility.) So the tenor of our response is very important here.

It is important that the child (or anyone else), rather than having to face the typical imperiousness of adults, be made to understand that we will take their questions and concerns on face value and address them openly and honestly. This begins to lay the groundwork for mutual trust, a groundwork that is sturdy enough to last the distance and hopefully avert future problems.

There is a good lesson here, particularly in how we ‘evangelize’ (‘evangel’ [eu-angel] from the Greek to mean ‘good messenger’ ). It’s not surprising that we are less than successful when we tell people that our words are ‘right’ because they come from the Bible. Or that a particular way of living is desirable because of how God ‘wants’ it. Few seem to be afraid  of the hell fire and damnation that some of the converted find so convincing. The religious stick of punishment seems to hold little allure for someone with such different world views than our own. In fact, because it is often lacking in empathy and respect, there is a good chance that it will turn them in the other direction. Their questions and comments, so often seen as inlfammatory and disrespectuf to us and of God,  are likely to be legitimate and rational. To angrily respond to them from a position  of alien authority is irrational on our part.

But what of God’s sovereignty? Compared to what God wants to say, does it  matter very much what we want to hear? Well, perhaps not. But the Bible seems to suggest that we will be more comfortable with the message when we are comfortable with the messenger. It is no accident that Jesus is the most perfect persuader for God.

We are familiar with the Old Testament stories of people primarily seeing God as fearful, adjudicating, wrathful and punishing. We have the analogies of God as a parent, having to hurt us in order to help us. There is God as the benevolent dictator, requiring righteous behavior and punishing the unrighteous because anything else would be unfair, unbalanced and unjust. The history of the Bible consistently presents  this fearful, authoritarian image of God. It also reaveals that, as a persuasive tactic, it has been terribly unsuccessful. With all the intimidating language, the chosen people usually chose something other than God’s way.

This tactic was so unsuccessful that a totally different course of action was employed. The message of God, his Word, took on flesh as Jesus, a mortal man that we could relate to – as opposed to a God we never really could. The means by which Jesus conveyed this message was done in a way that allowed us to figure it out for ourselves, discovering it in our own individual ways. We have been invited to come closer, learning the lesson in terms we can understand,  worked out through our relationship with Jesus. He shows us how to ‘love’ the lesson, not only because he is the lesson but because he allows us to find the unique way it works for us. He permits us to see some of ourselves in him and then, hopefully, others will see some of him in us.

Jesus does not try forcing us to obey him by invoking his authority, an authority that God has certainly given him. Through weakness and brokeness he attracts those who do not respond to well to threats and intimidation.  Which happens to be just about all of us.

Revelations on Revelation

Buddy Oliver, over on Rev22 has some interesting things to say about the book of John’s Revelation:

“I think it could be argued however that Revelation is second in importance only to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. One could make a case that it ranks above Luke’s Gospel because Revelation is a first hand account of an encounter with Jesus and many theologians believe that it was written by John the Apostle (of course there are those who think otherwise). Luke on the other hand is a second hand account at best (albeit an incredibly important book nonetheless)…

…the Gospels are the life blood of Christians. They are vitally important even central for us to live out the Kingdom. However they only give us basically a three year window into who Jesus is. Among many other things, Revelation gives us more to add to that picture. It gives us the first (and only?) status report on our progress.”

Read the whole article here:

http://rev22.wordpress.com/2007/08/11/revelations-on-revelation/

Working Off the Books or Extra Credit Towards Salvation?

It would seem that, among the many Christian denominations , there is a nearly uniform consensus that belief in Jesus as God is essential for eternal salvation. Since the beginning of the Church many learned men and women have formulated different theologies but almost all of them would have at least this much as a foundation.

But is it reasonable to assume that this is so? And if this happens to be the case, is this the only requirement for salvation or are there further steps that need to be taken?

Not everyone can even seem to agree on what ’salvation’ is. There are those, probably in the majority, who see salvation as an eternal existence with God, in Heaven. The alternative to this salvation is generally thought of as being consigned to eternal suffering in a place called Hell. (My thoughts on the validity of Heaven and Hell are written elsewhere on this blog so there is no need to pursue that line at this time.)

Other Christians see salvation as being a divine release from the emotional and psychological pain of human bondage, often coupled with a heavenly reward as well. But a reward for what?

If we hail from one of the more works-driven traditions, such as Roman Catholicism, then we are rewarded for a life well lived, engaging in acts of charity and mercy as well as adhering to religious laws and traditions. Protestants on the other hand feel that no amount of work or action on the part of the believer can ever earn God’s approval, as God is perfectly holy. In this case it is only the good graces of God who spare the believer from a punishment that he deserves only too well.

But in neither case does it seem that only God’s grace is the means of salvation. Just the personal decision to accept God as lord is an action in itself. Our salvation would seem to require at least some effort on our part.

(The Calvinists get around this by saying that we are not allowed this choice, that God has determined before time began who would be saved and who would not. The doctrine of election is point that divides the church, if only on academic grounds. But is it really necessary to craft these tortuous explanations, when we may be only addressing the problems inherent to other equally artificial explanations?)

Our salvation apparently required an effort on God’s part as well, resulting in the sacrifice of his son as an atonement for our sins. And scripture is clear on how important our individual actions actually are. “Faith without works is dead” (James 2: 14-17) and the disciple of Christ will grow “fruit of the spirit”(Galatians 5: 22-24), attitudes and actions that would identify the true believer as such.

When Peter asks Jesus what he should do to prove his love for him, Jesus repeatedly tells him to ‘feed my sheep’ (John 21: 15-17) Even with this and other clear cut instructions from Jesus, the idea that God requires more from us than a mere profession of faith is not something that Protestants tend to emphasize. In fact, it is often stressed that no matter what a person does, he can not lose his salvation – “once saved always saved”.

I wonder where we find the biblical basis for this unambiguous doctrine. It is possible for someone to exhibit mean spirited, even evil behavior throughout their lives and stay confident that once they said the sinner’s prayer their salvation was assured. Of course an intentional lifestyle along these lines would likely be hypocritical so perhaps all bets are off. But what of the deluded person who does not see the error of their ways? (this may describe most of us)

I would hesitate to suggest what God may do with anyone, whether they appear good, or bad (by my standards). Yet many Christians do not hesitate to make assumptions about the fate of those whom they call the ‘unsaved’.

I know personally (and you probably do as well) people of other faiths or even of no faith, who seem to more closely follow the ways of Jesus than quite a few of our pew-mates. I have heard many people say that it doesn’t matter how good a person you are, if you have not professed acceptance of Jesus as God and King, then you are hell bound. Of course, the converse of that would be that no matter what you say or do, publicly or privately, if you are one of those ’saved’ by your profession of faith, then you will be with him in eternity.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? Oh, I expect to hear from people who will say that I am denying God’s word, but when I read the Bible I don’t see this doctrine (even in John 3:18 – this conversation with Nicodemus can be interpreted differently). I speak regularly with a number of atheists, mostly on the net. They seem to be fairly riled up over a lot of things that religious people say and do, but in my experience this particular doctrine of the elect seems to antagonize them the most. One of my concerns is that if this doctrine is not even biblical then what damage is it doing to our ability to share the Gospel with skeptics?

St. Paul says this in his letter to the Romans:

When outsiders who have never heard of God’s law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God’s law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God’s yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God’s yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences. Romans 2:14-16

Jesus himself once said this of a pagan, a man who professed Caesar as god incarnate and messiah:

Taken aback, Jesus said, “I’ve yet to come across this kind of simple trust in Israel, the very people who are supposed to know all about God and how he works. This man is the vanguard of many outsiders who will soon be coming from all directions—streaming in from the east, pouring in from the west, sitting down at God’s kingdom banquet alongside Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then those who grew up ‘in the faith’ but had no faith will find themselves out in the cold, outsiders to grace and wondering what happened.” Matthew 8:10-12

So what is it that God requires of us? Is it the belief in God that is important or is it our faith in his Way, a faith that some non-believers seem to hold as well? Is an atheist who holds faithfully to the ‘golden rule’ somehow less in God’s eyes than a believer who has trouble keeping it? I would suggest that none of us, even though we may believe, have the right to pronounce death sentences on those who do not.

Shoot the Messengers (Why Fire and Brimstone Preaching is Evil)

In what is often seen as the most famous sermon in American history, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (1741) Jonathan Edwards paints this vivid portrait of our Father in Heaven;

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.

Jesus told us to spread the Good News. He told us that people would know us by our love for one another. Jesus was a man of forgiveness, peace, compassion, non-violence – love. When asked what God the Father was like, he told his disciples that because they knew him they would know the Father, that they could see the Father by seeing him. He called our Father abba, or daddy.

Of course, God the Father is not a man in flowing robes with long curly blond hair, light complected and with blue eyes. (Neither was Jesus) But you get my point. And we should get Jesus’ point as well. The only part of the Father that Jesus could reveal to us was that of God’s nature, his ‘personality’. He did this through what he said and more importantly what he did, especially what he did for us on the cross.

So why have we had to endure the terrifying and vile language of those such as Edwards and his spawn? Of course, Edwards was not alone. Many, perhaps most, leaders in the Christian (and Muslim) church have preached of hell and damnation. The medieval Roman Catholic church was so obsessed with God the torturer and inquisitor that they nobly and piously followed his ‘example’. At the First Great Awakening (1730-1740) there was a great upsurge in Protestant fire and brimstone rhetoric which has lasted to this day, though there have been those who have long stood apart from this philosophy, such as the Quakers.

Rabbis Michael Shevack and Jack Bemporad, in a book called “Stupid Ways, Smart Ways, to Think About God”, have coined the phrase “Marquis de God”. They suggest that he’s regarded by many as the ‘proverbial God of wrath, ready to show how much he cares by punishing you, the Marquis de God, despising sinners so much he exterminates them”.

(Not very long ago there was a church convention being advertised on the radio, a convention devoted to discussing the qualities of hell. Somehow their researchers had determined that the fires of hell burned at more than 2,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit! Yet no one would die in those flames, they would merely burn like candlewicks for all eternity. What type of monster is their God?)

But where do we get these crazy ideas? Even more importantly, why do we embrace them?

I don’t believe it is because of anything that is expressly stated within the Bible. Many of these hellish concepts are not biblical in the least, having been tacked on throughout the ages. I have heard many say that this is the result of a natural tendency on our part to project ourselves onto the nature of the deity, subconsciously endowing him with all the malevolent characteristics that we naturally abhor in ourselves and others. But, I think it is more sinister than that.

Throughout history there have been leaders – pharoahs, kings, queens, presidents, dictators- who have been more than willing to stretch the truth beyond any rational breaking point merely to maintain their rule of authority. This is a natural tendency of man and we know that power will almost always corrupt the powerful. Jesus’ message always stressed the strength in our weaknesses, our brokenness above the whole and strong. Yet the Church has always had a way of forgetting that particular thread that runs through the Gospels and even the Bible as a whole. The Church becomes strong and rules the rulers of the western world. Even after splintering into 10,000 limbs that live apart from each other, each individual denomination strives for dominance over the others. Our leaders become popular, powerful, rich and famous, bending the ears of millions as well as those who rule those millions.

Like all leaders who begin to doubt their abilities to govern based upon the merits of their philosophies, they inevitably resort to fear as the primary incentive for loyalty. In the past the Church has used the threat of horrifying torture, both in this world and in the next, to keep people in line. Protestants generally have relied solely upon the threat of eternal torment in the after-life(although they have been known to burn a heretic or two themselves).

“As the souls of heretics are hereafter to be eternally burning in hell, there can be nothing more proper than for me to imitate the divine vengeance by burning them on earth.”

~ “Bloody” Mary, Queen of England, 1553-1558

Today the stick is still used more often than the carrot. Sure Joel Osteen and friends preach the Gospel of prosperity, but they are only using reverse psychology. If you don’t do things their way you will not only miss out on prosperity but you will very likely remain mired in the trap of poverty. Even some elements of the liberal wing of the Church have found success in using scare tactics to meet their agenda, using the threat of global warming to frighten people into embracing a socially active Gospel.

To what good is it to preach the Gospel if we are not at least trying to live the Gospel? And how are we living the Gospel, how are we emulating Jesus, when we bully and scare people into turning towards God? How many of us, because of this style of ‘evangelizing’ know the message with our heads but not by heart?

When it comes to spreading the Good (or the Bad) News it would appear that the messenger may actually be the message.

The Meat of Human Kindness (The dangerous Revelation of John)

“I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto you were not able to bear it, neither yet now are you able”.

For Christians the cross of Jesus Christ is the pivotal point of all history – no, of all time. The cross that Jesus asks us to bear with Him is usually that of having to love and forgive not only those who despise us but also those who despise Jesus. He loves them and we must also as well.

Contrary to what I used to believe, Jesus’ Gospel of love, compassion and forgiveness is the true ‘meat’ of the Gospel. This is what we have the hardest time digesting, the idea that no matter how repugnant the act or the actor, God allows us no option but to love that person as He would.

There is a fair amount of arguing going on over whether this image of God, as represented by Jesus in the Gospels, is the entire picture. Even though Jesus is quite adamant that He is a perfect representation of God the Father, many believers say that other parts of the Bible show a different side to His nature. Not everything in ‘red letters’ is about love, kindness, compassion and forgiveness.

As far as ‘red letters’ go (something we have had only since 1900), there is only one book other than the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles which uses them. Could that be where most of the problem lies? It would depend upon if you believe that Jesus actually uttered those particular words or not. Whoever John was, he admits that his revelation was not ‘real’, that it was probably a dream or an hallucination much like that of Daniel’s. He refers back to Daniel quite a bit, and both Daniel and Revelation use imagery first found in the Hebrew apocrypha, such as the book of Enoch. Little of what John tells us has anything relationally to do with the Gospels. As opposed to the Gospel of love and forgiveness that Jesus shared, John’s revelation is one of vengeance and wrath, encouraging many of the church’s historical excesses as well as (I would presume) much of modern fundamentalist theology

In fact, there is no mention of the cross of Jesus in the Book of Revelation. Nowhere in this book can we see God’s love and compassion displayed as we see it portrayed on Golgotha. For years there has been controversy within the church over whether or not this book should even be included in the canon, with Martin Luther saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”

The idea that the righteous will be avenged by God through bloody and violent campaigns, that there is some hyper-powerful created being who, in opposing God, is causing the world’s suffering, that those who have hurt us will someday get what’s coming to them – this is all ‘milk’. It goes down easy because it is how the world ‘works’. It’s what we are used to, it’s how Hollywood movies are staged and resolved and it puts us in the enviable position of watching the losers suffer the way we think they should. Even though John harangues various churches for becoming too comfortable with the prevailing cultures of the day, his revelation actually complements those cultures and does not run counter to them. Jesus’ Good News was the counter culture message of His time as well as all others. (It is ironic that ‘milk’ and ‘meat’ are the words used in the KJV as both these foods must be kept seperate according to Hebrew custom).

No matter how much stock we may or may not put into the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture it must always be looked at through the lens of the Gospel. There is nothing ‘evangelical’ about the book of Revelation. Actions speak louder than words and what Jesus did with his life drowns out any arguments over what he said, red letters or not. With practice, the tough, chewy, hard-to-swallow ‘meat’ of the Gospel eventually may become the easy flowing ‘milk’ of human kindness